Template talk:Character/Archive 1
What the heck happened to this template? It's gone from all the articles. ― ThailogTalk :So, it's only I who can't see them? ::I can see them. ::--BoneGnawer 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :::Well I can't. Is there an explanation for this? ― ThailogTalk ::::Refresh the page, troubleshoot your browser. I'm seeing the template on 4 different Macs and 2 different Windows machines. I'm using Firefox, Safari and IE. ::::--BoneGnawer 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Yeah, I can see them with Firefox... Weird. ― ThailogTalk = Relatives = I like the breaks that were inserted into the relatives field in Batman I. If anyone knows how to align the field title to the top of the cell, please make the change. Thanks. --BoneGnawer 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC) = Color = Personally, I think the Infoboxes need to stand out from the rest of the article ― too much white. I like the current color (silver) ― it doesn't stand out too much, but it's notable enough. Tell me what you think. ― ThailogTalk = Optional Fields = I found a way to create optional fields for the Infoxes. I consider that it's better to omit fields when we do not know those facts about a given character than to conjecture, or worse, adding a bunch of "unknown" notes. For now I made it so that the Voice Actor field doesn't appear if not filled in. Many character have no speaking roles or are uncredited. Do you agree? I propose we sort out which fields should be optional so that we don't have infoboxes like this one. It's preferable to have infoboxes with only three fields filled in, because a six "N/A"s add very little to the quality of the articles. I propose we make every field optional, so that we are not compelled to fill them in even when we have absolutely no information to put up. ― ThailogTalk ----- * Sorry for the mess. I was trying to include the "|-" on the coding so that when the Voice Actor is omitted we don't see a space at the end of the table... If anyone knows how to fix it, please do so. ― ThailogTalk * Ok, now for some reason the names on the Voice Actors field don't appear, so I reverted everything back to the last good edit... Back to square one. I hate Wiki code. Is there some tutorial that teaches you to how to do complicated things, or is it a "Try it till you get it right" thing? ― ThailogTalk -------------- *Ok, The Template is ready; do we go with it? Personally I prefer how the table's border makes the infobox stand out from the article. I also like how we don't have to fill in every field even if there's no verifiable information available, which makes some fields redundant and meaningless. :If we are to use it, we won’t need to change anything big on the site's articles (only removing some occasional "Unknown" fields.) Also, this template would make the Villain Template redundant, since its only difference is the "rogue" field. In which case, we’d need to change the name of the template from "Villain" to "Character" on the villains articles ― though that’s hardly taxing. :Also, if you agree with the change, what do would you think of adding more fields, such as "Abilities" and "Weaponry"? --Thailog 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ::Addendum: maybe at this point, it would be good to add a "Status" field to the Infoboxes. Many characters died, others are missing... What say you? ― Thailog 17:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) :::Man, it could be terrible contributing to a half-dead wiki. What I say is we should go ahead and replace the templates with this. It looks good on Template talk:Test, and I think we can redirect some of the templates and see how it works out.--Tim Thomason 02:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC) ::::I'm sorry but it looks stupid now. The image is not enclosed and doesn't fit and it has that ugly Profile tab under it. --'Redemption'Talk 05:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC) :::::Are you referring to the Black Mass profile, or all in general? I dunno why Tim changed its size to 200px. I think we agreed upon 300px. As far as it being "ugly", it's a matter of opinion, and you had plenty of time to expressed yours before. ― Thailog 11:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC) :::I'm going to try to fix the "colspan" thing, as I think that's what Redemption is alluding to and I noticed yesterday. We can still propose other minor changes to the template if it looks ugly. In fact, we can always do that. I don't think it looks that bad, with 200px or 300px. 300px seemed a little bit too much to me, but that could be my personal preference (I'm from MA where just about everything is 200px) and should be changed back if it looks better the other way to everybody else, or if it was agreed to somewhere else.--Tim Thomason 03:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC) ::::No, I'm almost sure he was referring to the fact that the pictures didn't fit the whole frame, because you had changed them to 200px (http://dcanimated.wikia.com/index.php?title=Black_Mass&direction=prev&oldid=9393, http://dcanimated.wikia.com/index.php?title=Bizarro&oldid=9388). You're probably thinking he's referring to the thin margin between the border and the text/pictures. That is necessary to distinguish the table from the rest of the page. The old template looked very crude and unappealing. As for the picture sizes, here, BoneGnawer proposed 300px for infoboxes. No offense, but seeing as you only come here once in a while, you should keep a watch on fundamental pages to be in the loop on important discussions. Personally, I think 300 is too big and takes too much space, but 200px is definitely too small. However, since there are only roughly three active members, it's very hard to reach a consensus, when they all have different opinions. I went with the 300px because that's not an essential concern. But, I do believe we need a more cohesive community so that we aren't constantly stepping on each other's toes. For that we need more involvement from the staff. We need written rules to abide by and build a consistent site ― and not one made of different personal preferences. Also, please don't make changes like these based on personal preferences without proposing them before. Considering that I proposed a new Character template (for the betterment of the site) and stewed for two weeks waiting ― out of courtesy ― for an answer, I find this course of action very inconsiderate. Having said that, I don't like the word "Profile" alone. That's why I added "Character" but I agree that's sort of redundant. Maybe we could discuss upon a different term? "Information" or "Characteristics" perhaps? I hope you don't take any of my suggestions as personal attacks. I just think the founder of a site has extra responsibilities. ― Thailog 13:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)